← Back to sermon library

Well, we finished the study of 
the Confession, so we'll start again, and typically what we 
do at this stage is give a bit of an introduction to the Second 
London Confession of Faith, and then to highlight some of the 
utility of it, or the usefulness of a Confession of Faith. In 
terms of some background studies or things that are helpful with 
reference to the Confession of Faith, I would highly commend 
Richard Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. 
It's not just a dictionary per se, but it goes into discussion, 
extended, detailed discussion of how words have been used in 
the history of the church. Greek obviously reflecting the 
New Testament usage, and then Latin, much of theology was done 
in Latin, so that's a very helpful book. Dr. James Renahan has a 
book that deals primarily with the latter chapters of the Confession 
of Faith called Edification and Beauty that is most helpful. 
There is as well a document online, it's a parallel comparison. You've got in one column the 
Westminster Confession, then the Savoy Declaration, and then 
the London Baptist. If anybody's interested, email 
me and I'll give you the link for that. As well, Samuel Waldron 
has a book called A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession 
of Faith, which is good. It's not really detailed, it's 
more of an overview. I'd like to think that James 
Renahan or Richard Barcelos is going to produce a before they 
die, something in terms of a detailed exposition of the Confession 
of Faith. And then there's some things that are very helpful 
with reference to the Westminster Confession. David Dixon, he was 
a man in the 1600s, wrote a commentary on the Confession, the Westminster, 
it's called Truths, Victory Over Error, and one of the interesting 
points with reference to that book is that he doesn't deal 
with stuff that everybody agrees on. He deals with the more controversial 
things that were in the Confession of Faith. And then as well, there 
is a commentary by A.A. Hodge and Robert Shaw on the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, and then a modern one by a guy 
named Chad Van Dixhorn on the Westminster Confession. So certainly, 
when you study our confession, it is good to be involved with 
the Westminster, because so much of our confession came from the 
Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration of Faith. Well 
in terms of a bit of a historical introduction, this will be very 
brief, there were confessions that preceded our confession 
that were baptistic in nature. Now back then they didn't refer 
to them as Reformed Baptists. That's a 20th century sort of 
identifier for those who subscribe to the London Baptist Confession 
of Faith. They were called Particular Baptists 
back in the 17th century. Well in the 17th century initially 
there was a Baptist confession drawn up, it was the 1644 confession, 
and the subtitle was the confession of faith of those churches which 
are commonly, though falsely, called Anabaptists. So they were 
trying to distinguish themselves from Anabaptists because it was 
quite common. for persons to see somebody that 
was a Baptist and just conclude that they were Anabaptists. So 
the Baptists, particular Baptists of the 17th century, wanted to 
distinguish themselves from the Anabaptists, thus they wrote 
the 1644 Confession. There was a revision in 1646, 
it was due to criticism by a man named Dr. Daniel Featley. and 
there's various reasons behind the revision there. But so that 
would have been the first London Confession of Faith, and then 
we have the second London Confession of Faith. Now that's not so common 
nowadays, but I'd say 10, 15, 20 years ago, it was common for 
what's called Sovereign Grace Baptists, to kind of pick on 
Reform Baptists and suggest that the 1689 Confession just slavishly 
followed the Westminster Confession and therefore it was wrong or 
inaccurate or incorrect to do so. And in fact, with reference 
to the Sovereign Grace, or we might call them Calvinistic Baptists, 
they would hold to the five points of Calvinism, but they would 
not hold to the same robust covenant theology that you find in the 
Second London Confession, which yields chapter 19 in the Confession. 
Chapter 19 is of the law of God. So the Calvinistic Baptists or 
the Sovereign Grace Baptists may affirm the five points of 
Calvinism and have a lot in common with us, but they don't hold 
to that same sort of robust covenant theology, and they certainly 
don't hold to an understanding of chapter 19 of the law of God. They think that was a second 
London Baptist confession of faith sellout to the Westminster 
Confession. But that's simply not the case. 
In terms of the Second London Confession of Faith, it was written 
in 1677. It was actually published and 
ratified and put out to the churches in 1689. And interestingly, 1689, 
it was two months after the Act of Toleration was put into effect. So the Baptists had the freedom 
now, under William and Mary, to be able to say exactly and 
precisely what they wanted to say. So it's simply not the case 
that they were towing some government line or simply falling in line 
with the Westminster Presbyterians. Rather, they had the freedom 
to publish the Second London Confession, and it contains chapter 
19 of the Law of God that is exactly and precisely the same, 
maybe some minor variations, from Westminster Confession on 
the Law of God. And in terms of the revisions, 
the Baptists, or the authors of the 1689, changed considerable 
statements in the Westminster Confession. If they were slavishly 
following it, they weren't doing it very well, because they do 
change things along the way. and they freely changed non-Baptist 
views and would have done so with the law of God if they had 
disagreed with the Westminster Confession of Faith. So it's 
simply not the case. Again, we don't hear so much 
of it now, but 10, 20, 25, 30 years ago, you would hear these 
Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptists say, we hold to the 
First Confession because it's better with reference to the 
law of God. It's just not as detailed with reference to the 
law of God as is the Second London Confession. In fact, in the preface 
to the Second London Confession, they said, in those things wherein 
we differ from others, we have expressed ourselves with all 
candor and plainness. Contention is most remote from 
our design in all that we have done in this matter. So essentially 
the particular Baptists were trying to give a public identity, 
trying to describe or distinguish themselves from the Anabaptists, 
and showing that they were consistent with Westminster Presbyterians 
and with the independence of the Savoy Declaration, but not 
slavishly so. There were things that distinguished 
them, and that is reflected in the Confession of Faith, specifically 
with reference to baptism, as well with reference to church 
government. You see those things that they 
have differed on. But in terms of those things 
that were in common agreement, they went ahead and followed 
it, because that is what you do. You try to have the largest 
expression of evangelical faith with your fellows. And then it 
was a common practice in those days to basically take confessions 
of faith and copy them. I know we'd have, you know, people 
crying copyright infringement and all that sort of thing, breach 
of the law, how dare you Baptists copy the Westminster Confessiat. But in the preface to the Second 
London Confession, they said, we did conclude it necessary 
to confess ourselves the more fully and distinctly, and finding 
no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the Westminster Assembly, 
and after them by those of the Congregational Way. So Westminster 
Confession of Faith, and then the Savoy Declaration. They go 
on to say, we did conclude it best to retain the same order 
in our present confession. Again, they're trying to show 
solidarity with the Presbyterians and the Independents. That's 
a good thing. We want to have solidarity with as many Christians 
as we can possibly have, and so that's the manner in which 
they proceeded. not towing the line in every 
jot and tittle, but making those distinctions or changes along 
the way as best befit a Baptist understanding of Scripture. They 
go on to say, we did conclude it best to retain the same order 
in our present confession, for the most part without any variation 
of terms, making use of the very same words with them both, This 
we did to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion 
with new words." They had no itch to clog religion with new 
words. We're not trying to reinvent 
the wheel, is what they're saying. We're trying to confess alongside 
of our Presbyterian and independent brothers those things most surely 
believed among us, but we will. make sure that we distinguish 
ourselves in those things that we disagree on. So there was 
this desire, no itch to clog religion with new words, but 
to readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which has 
been used by others before us. And again, it was a common practice 
in those days. There was a Baptist by the name 
of Hercules Collins, who essentially took the Heidelberg Catechism 
and baptized it and called it the Orthodox Catechism. I don't 
know if that was to distinguish it from the Heidelberg particulars, 
but it was a common practice. And in fact, some suggest, and 
it's obvious the case, that the First London Confession of Faith 
owes a great deal to William Ames and his marrow of divinity, 
or his marrow of theology. In other words, when you find 
a truth that resonates and rightly reflects what Scripture teaches, 
you shouldn't change it. I think that's a problem that 
faces the church today. In our attempt to get everything 
so that everybody can understand it, we're changing language. 
When it comes time to change language, however, at times we 
miss nuances and things that are particular to words. In other words, the Trinitarian 
discussion, I do not think it's wise to change the accepted nomenclature 
that the church has used faithfully since the 3rd and 4th centuries. 
Those things were hammered out, and therefore we ought to not 
dumb it down, but rather teach people what these words mean. 
And brethren, in the day of phones, where you can just type in any 
word and get a billion hits on a particular word, it's just 
laziness that says, well, let's make it more negotiable for the 
common folk. We're all common folk, but the 
law of the Lord makes wise the simple, and a little bit of investigation 
oftentimes yields great results. And then in terms of the theological 
rationale, the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration are 
both excellent statements of Calvinistic faith, and they were 
wonderful means of protecting the Church from both Arminianism 
and Pelagianism, and a whole host of other things. And then 
as well, the practical benefit. The use of the Westminster Confession 
was a convenient way for people to reference what Baptists believe. 
They're not some brand new cult or sect, they're certainly not 
Anabaptists, rather they affirm the bulk of what the Westminster 
and the Savoy Declaration contains. So it was a great way to tell 
and to identify and to describe what it was that particular Baptists 
were about. and then also the preface of 
the Second London Confession sees their document as a continuation 
and an expansion of the First Confession. They're not saying 
that everything that was written in 1644-1646 is wrong. They don't contradict it. They 
don't say, well, those guys got it all wrong with reference to 
the law, so we're going to come and fix it and clean it all up. 
No, they saw it as an expansion. further elaboration on doctrine. And then intriguingly, for this 
kind of an argument that there was this great disparity between 
the First and the Second London Confession of Faith, there were 
two men that signed both. Now, either they had just said, 
well, we're going to toe the line and knuckle under the Presbyterians, 
or they were expressing their concern that the confession, 
the second one, would be, in fact, an expansion and an elaboration 
on the first confession. Those men were William Kiffin 
and Hansard Nollings. So both of those men signed both 
confessions, and that again shows at least from this vantage point 
that they were not in the mindset that we have capitulated, that 
we have just knuckled under to the Presbyterians, and that we're 
just accepting whatever it is that they say. That's not what 
their attitude was, it was rather a continuation and expansion. Now when it comes to a consideration 
of the confession's usefulness, this is a big challenge today. 
Sometimes people will say, we're not supposed to be enslaved to 
confessions of faith. So they have generic, very ambiguous 
statements of faith that basically just ask you to be able to pronounce 
the word God. That's not fair to people that 
are looking at churches. That's not fair to churches expecting 
certain conduct or doctrine from their ministers. A robust confession 
of faith helps everybody involved in the life and context of the 
church. We do not see the confession of faith as inspired. Scripture 
is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. 
It is not the case that the confession of faith is inspired. We don't 
believe the confession is infallible. There's a couple of places in 
the confession that perhaps gives some of us a bit of cause to 
say, oh, if I was writing it or if I'd have been involved, 
I might've said things a little bit differently. And as well, 
we're not suggesting that it's on par with Scripture. But this 
idea that a vague confession, a vague statement, this sort 
of big tent approach, just so that we can get a lot of people 
into the church, is not fair to anybody, and it's not a good 
practice. A church benefits when there's 
a whole lot of things that she agrees upon with one another. 
So I want to consider some of the things concerning the utility 
or usefulness of the Second London Confession of Faith, which applies 
to the Three Forms of Unity, to the Savoy Declaration, or 
to the Westminster Confession. Why do churches use Confessions 
of Faith? In the first place, to define 
the doctrine of the church. In the first place, to define 
the doctrine of the church. You can turn to 1 Timothy 3. 
1 Timothy 3. Define may not be the best word, 
but I tried to alliterate, so that's the best I've got. Describe, 
delineate, articulate, demonstrate truth with reference to Scripture. Notice in 1 Timothy 3 14, these 
things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly. 
But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you 
ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the 
church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 
We have the church, which is the pillar and ground of the 
truth. We have the Bible that provides that data, and we have 
confessions of faith that define it. or articulate it, or summarize 
it, or present it in a useful way, in a useful means. And then 
verse 16 is intriguing, and without controversy, great is the mystery 
of godliness, or by common confession. I think the New American Standard 
Bible translates it. That's more along the way, and 
then we see what is confession of the church. Verse 16, God 
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen 
by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the 
world, received up in glory. There are these places in the 
New Testament where there's these packed summary statements of 
Christian doctrine, which seems to indicate that the early church 
had confessions. They articulated the truth, and 
they, together, confessed those particular things. And then look 
at 2 Timothy 1. 2 Timothy 1, verse 13, "...hold 
fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me 
in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." The confession 
of faith helps us to comply with Paul's instruction there, to 
hold fast the pattern of sound words. Yes, we have the Bible. Nobody's arguing against that. 
But when we have a confession of faith, it summarizes the Bible's 
teaching in each of the doctrines covered from chapter 1 to chapter 
32. It gives us a helpful resource 
to be able to go to and find what Scripture says concerning 
God, find what Scripture says concerning Christ, find what 
Scripture says concerning justification by faith. It's a helpful thing 
that in any other field we would encourage highly And when it 
comes to the church, we say, oh, no creed but the Bible. That's 
a great confession of the Jehovah's Witnesses. No creed but the Bible. They are as creedal and as committed 
to a confession as anybody who's ever subscribed to one of these 
historic confessions. It's just their own. It's their 
own distorted, twisted, and skewed view of what Scripture says. 
So persons who say, all I need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit, 
are rejecting the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Because Jesus ascended 
on high, He led captivity captive, and He gave gifts to men. In 
Ephesians 4, the context there, the specific gifts are not tongues, 
it's not prophesying, it's not helps, it's not administration, 
it's men. Some as apostles, some as prophets, 
some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers. So the 
guy who waves his Bible and says, all I need is the Bible and the 
Holy Spirit, doesn't take what the Holy Spirit has given. The 
ascended Christ gave Calvin to the church. We don't agree with 
everything Calvin said, but we also don't dismiss Calvin because 
we recognize that he's one of the gifts the ascended Lord Jesus 
gave to the church. And so this arrogance of waiving 
the Bible, and I've seen this happen. Oh, all I need is, you 
know, me and the Holy Spirit. I don't need systematic theology. 
My observation is that when people say that, they of all people 
need systematic theology and the confessions of faith. In 
terms of practicality, with reference to the definition of Christian 
doctrine, there's an older Baptist brother named B.H. Carroll. He says, a church with a little 
creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines 
a church can agree on, the greater its power and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, 
the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry, 
less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the vertebrate 
to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and 
it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create 
heresy, it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian 
world would fill up with heresy, unsuspected and uncorrected, 
but nonetheless deadly. So it's not the case that more 
doctrines are going to create more problems. And again, it's 
fair. If you are, to use the modern 
language, shopping for a church, it is fair on the part of the 
church to tell people what they're getting into. It is fair to the 
person that is looking for the church to understand what that 
church affirms concerning Christian orthodoxy. If we just say, well, 
they say God, they know about Jesus to some degree, everything's 
going to be great. You don't know what you're going 
to get from Sunday to Sunday. You could get tongue speaking, 
you could get healing, you could get whatever. You could get a 
whole host of things that would violate your conscience as a 
Christian because you do not believe those things are taught 
in Scripture. So first, to define the doctrine 
of the church. Secondly, to defend the doctrine 
of the church. There's two texts we ought to 
consider here. The first is Jude 3. Jude 3. Let's pick up in verse 1, because 
I think it's important for us to understand who Jude's writing 
to. Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, 
to those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved 
in Jesus Christ. Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied 
to you." Who's Jude writing to? Christians. He's writing to believers. Notice that Jude does not say, 
Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, 
to those who are called to the ministry, to those who are professional 
theologians, to those who are pastors or deacons in the context 
of the local church. He's writing to believers, brethren. 
And then in verse three, he starts off with calling them beloved. 
He doesn't change his audience. He doesn't mean, here, beloved, 
oh, here I mean just the pastors and the doctors of theology and 
the seminary students. No, he's talking to those who 
are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in 
Jesus Christ. Now notice in verse 3, Beloved, while I was very 
diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found 
it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend earnestly 
for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 
In other words, that's the duty and the requirement of all God's 
people, not just pastors. Certainly pastors have that function 
corporately with reference to, you know, threats concerning 
the church as a whole. But all the people of God are 
required to know the doctrines of God's word such that they're 
able to give a defense of that. And the reason why Jude does 
that is very practical. Look at what he says in verse 
four. For certain men have crept in unnoticed. who long ago were 
marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men who turn the grace 
of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our 
Lord Jesus Christ." So he's not saying this is some theoretical 
potential. This is some possibility that 
may occur in the 21st century. No, it's upon us. Apostates in 
the first century were already preying on the people of God. 
So Jude tells the people of God to contend earnestly for the 
faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. This 
is a wonderful summary statement of what this teaches, and it 
becomes a great basis upon which we defend the doctrines of Scripture. And then 1 Peter 3. 1 Peter 3. Again, Peter is writing to Christians, 
not just to pastors. You see that in 1 Peter 1. Verse 
1, Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, 2, the pilgrims of the 
dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia 
elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in sanctification 
of the Spirit. For obedience and sprinkling 
of the blood of Jesus Christ, grace to you in peace be multiplied. 
See, writing to Christians, writing to believers. And in 1 Peter 
3 at verse 15, he says, but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. 
and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason 
for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. So you need 
to sanctify Christ as Lord in the heart. As well, you need 
to know the truth because you can't defend it if you don't 
know it. That makes perfect sense. As 
well, assumed here, on the mind of Peter, is that the Christian 
faith is in fact defensible. It's not a fable, it's not a 
story, it doesn't begin with in a land far, far away. No, 
it's historically accurate, it is verifiable, and it is the 
case that it can be defended. All Christians must be able to 
defend the faith always. He says, always be ready. As 
well, engage all who ask, manifest hope, and imitate Christ in terms 
of our disposition. Doing so with meekness and fear 
doesn't mean we're doormats to the God-hating rebel and the 
atheist. We have a meekness and fear relative 
to our God, but we have a decent Christian composure when we are 
arguing with the opponents of Christianity. So it is the case 
that the people of God as a whole are called upon to defend the 
Christian faith. Paul tells us in Philippians 
1.27, the church is to have one mind and is to be striving together 
for the faith of the gospel. Again, this isn't inspired, but 
it is a great summary statement of what is taught in Scripture. 
Now, perhaps you've read some of the stuff concerning the development 
of the doctrine of the Trinity. And if you've ever read systematic 
theology, and you've read discussions concerning the Trinity, you will 
know that, as far as I know, to a man, all of them defended 
the use of non-biblical language to defend biblical language. In other words, some of the early 
stuff that made up the early Trinitarian controversies, one 
was ousia, or substance or essence, and another was hypostasis, which 
meant person or a subsistence. Those aren't words necessarily 
found in Scripture, they are, but not in that particular context. 
But good men have always appreciated that at times you need to use 
extra-biblical language to protect what the Bible says. So this 
idea that, oh, you're using things, but for the most in the confessions, 
It's biblical language. Most of the time, when they're 
stringing together these statements of precision, you see that it 
reflects particular verses and particular concepts that are 
given to us in Scripture, but it becomes imperative to make 
distinctions and definitions to protect the teaching of the 
Bible. The word Trinity. Trinity's not in the Bible, but 
that word tells us something concerning the God that we know, 
the God that we love, and the God that we serve. And so this 
idea that we can only use words that find themselves in the Bible 
is not the position that the church has historically taken. 
You need to use theological language to protect the meaning of Scripture. 
Again, you've got Jehovah's Witnesses. You've got Mormons. You've got 
these pseudo-Christian cults that take the concepts of the 
Bible and turn them on their heads. So it becomes necessary 
for the church to understand that and to use language to defend 
the truth of Holy Scripture. Now, the Scripture obviously 
can defend itself, but especially when it comes to the hypostatic 
union of Jesus, when it comes to the Trinitarian nature of 
our gracious God, we need to use language that isn't necessarily 
in Romans to help us to deal with what Paul does say in Romans. Now that, again, may seem a bit 
odd, it may seem to be a bit of a challenge, and it may seem 
to argue that, oh, you've stepped outside of the context of Scripture. 
I suspect we've all done this. I suspect that if any time we 
have talked to a Jehovah's Witness, we have used concepts, or constructs, 
or language that isn't necessarily from Scripture to protect what 
Scripture says, and to show them their folly, and to show them 
their error. So it is a helpful tool to defend the doctrine of 
the church. Thirdly, to discriminate with 
reference to the doctrine of the church. Now when I say discriminate, 
I think our minds typically go to ethnicity. Our minds go to 
gender, because we're inundated with that concept of discrimination. We think that it's bad, and necessarily 
so. Now the concept of discrimination 
is biblical. The concept of discrimination, 
not on ethnic grounds, not on gender grounds, but in terms 
of doctrine or even practice, the Bible discriminates. For 
example, with reference to practice, just turn to 1 Timothy chapter 
5 for a moment. 1 Timothy chapter 5, I think 
gives us a practical illustration of the Bible engaged in discrimination, 
not based on ethnicity, not based on gender, not based on things 
that are unchangeable in the part or in the heart or in the 
being of persons, but in terms of either conduct or doctrine. Notice in 1 Timothy 5.3, honor 
widows who are really widows. Honor here means give them money. 
That's exactly what it means. It doesn't mean, how are you 
today, miss, reverend, whoever. It is honor. When you get to 
1 Timothy 5.17, and it says, let the elders who rule well 
be counted worthy of double honor, that doesn't mean you call them 
right, right, reverend, sir. It means you pay them. The same 
thing with reference to honoring widows. That's the context. It's 
supporting them. It's making sure they have shoes. 
It's making sure they have food. It's making sure that they have 
the wherewithal to sustain themselves in this world. So honor widows 
who are really widows. But if any widow has children 
or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and 
to repay their parents, for this is good and acceptable before 
God. See, the first line of defense in caring for widows is the widow 
family, the children of the widow. Verse 5, Now she who is really 
a widow and left alone trusts in God and continues in supplications 
and prayers night and day. But she who lives in pleasure 
is dead while she lives. And these things command that 
they may be blameless. But if anyone does not provide 
for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he 
has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. So you see 
Paul's logic here. In terms of widows that are in 
the context of the local church, the family has the moral obligation 
to feed them, to clothe them, to provide shelter for them. 
There is this strong condemnation in verse 8. If anyone doesn't 
provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he's 
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. But if it 
is the case that he does do that, if it is the case that there 
is no resources to provide for the widow, then she does become 
the concern for the church. But then notice how Paul discriminates. He doesn't say every single widow. He says a particular class of 
widows, which is discrimination. Notice in verse 9, do not let 
a widow under 60 years old be taken into the number, and not 
unless she has been the wife of one man, well reported for 
good works, if she has brought up children, if she has lodged 
strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has 
relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every 
good work. Brethren, that's discrimination 
in a practical way. If she has not been a faithful 
godly woman, then it's not the case that she will be enlisted 
on the particular role in terms of the church. Now, that doesn't 
mean the church watches her starve to death and die and all those 
sorts of things, but it's an emphasis concerning the stewardship 
of the church with God's money. Make sure, insofar as you are 
able, those recipients are those who have proven themselves as 
faithful people in the service of Christ. And then notice the 
concept with reference to younger widows. Refuse the younger widows, 
tell them to get married. That's Paul's argument, essentially, 
right there. So there is this practical discrimination, 
but as well, with reference to a confessional faith, it has 
the doctrinal discrimination. Dr. Robert Paul Martin, in a 
very helpful essay called The Legitimacy and Use of Confessions. It's the introduction to Sam 
Waldron's book on the exposition of the 1689. He says, the Bible 
envisages the local church not as a union of those who have 
agreed to differ, but as a body marked by peace and unity. We 
don't find ourselves here because we want to differ. We find ourselves 
here because there's a lot of substantial unity among us. Not 
on everything, to be sure, but on a lot of things. And it's, 
again, a fair thing, and it's a helpful thing in the sense 
of, if I'm a charismatic and I come to this church, then I'm 
going to find out pretty quickly that it's not for me. It's not 
the church I ultimately want to be at. And that's okay. That's not bad. It's not horrible. We're not consigning people to 
hell. We're simply saying, this is 
where we stand. But you know what, brethren, 
if a charismatic said, this is the best game in town and I want 
to participate here, I would say, okay. If you're a believer 
in Jesus, washed in the blood, justified freely by His grace. 
But what we do ask is that you don't have Bible studies on charismaticism 
in the back of the church. That's it. Just don't try to 
teach those things contrary to the life of the church. But this 
helps discriminate. And again, it's fair to the— 
again, using the language of the day—to the consumer. Right? We're going to visit a church. 
What do we want? We want to know what they teach. 
We want to know what they believe. We want to know how they view 
the doctrine of the Trinity. If we don't understand that, 
if that's not communicated to us, then most likely we're not 
going to stick around. So it's a fair sort of way to 
deal with people. The Great Commission envisages 
local church instructing Christ's sheep of those things he commanded. The context of such instruction 
must be one of peace. Ephesians 4.1, endeavoring to 
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If we're 
constantly fighting over the deity of Jesus within the context 
of our own local church, that doesn't promote the worship of 
God, it doesn't promote the stability of the saints, and it certainly 
doesn't lend itself to the salvation of sinners. I mean, imagine if 
every time we gathered together for our confessional studies, 
we tried to reinvent the wheel. No, brethren, at some point you 
just roll. You've already got the wheel, now you need to roll. 
We've identified doctrines that we believe are biblical, we believe 
this is a good summary statement, and so it's discrimination with 
reference to those who wouldn't want to be in that church anyway. 
Andrew Fuller made the observation, the object of articles of faith 
is to keep at a distance. Not those who are weak in the 
faith, but such as are its avowed enemies. The issue isn't, we 
don't want you here because you're weak. No, we want you here, especially 
if you're weak, so that you can learn. But the idea is to discriminate 
against its avowed enemies, those who are going to come in and 
challenge the ministry of the church at every step. Oh, Jesus 
is a creature. The Trinity is an invention of 
men. No, brethren, that's not helpful or conducive to a peaceful 
church life. So with reference to membership, 
and again, when I take new perspective members through the confession 
of faith, I think they'd all say, Butler never told us we 
had to memorize it. Butler never told us we had to 
be able to teach it. Butler simply said, this is where 
the church is at. in terms of our doctrinal understanding. And all we ask is that persons 
joining don't fight against that, don't argue against that, don't 
rail against that, even if you do disagree. Perhaps an Armenian 
might say, wow, this is the best game in town, which could have 
happened over the last several months when you're the only game 
in town, sometimes you're the best game in town. When you're 
the only church in town that is open, then perhaps that's 
an allurement to some to come. Perhaps an Arminian comes in 
here and says, I understand what you teach, I get what you're 
saying, I disagree at that particular level, I am washed in the blood 
of Jesus, I believe my sins are forgiven, and I want to be here. 
Again, please just don't teach Arminianism in terms of our church 
life. So not only with reference to 
membership, but as well for church officers. When we have had theological 
examinations for church officers, we use the Bible and we use this. Why? Because this gives us a 
summary statement of what the Bible teaches. It's a very helpful 
tool and it's a very excellent thing. With reference to elders, 
they need to be able to teach. That is a requirement in 1 Timothy 
3.2. They need to be able to teach 
in accordance with Titus 1 and verse 9. When you look at the 
pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, called the pastoral 
epistles because they're written to Paul's ministerial associates. 
Those documents emphasize not tongues, not prophesying, not 
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, but the emphasis falls, 
the accent falls, on sound doctrine. So this is a useful way to vet 
men and to determine whether or not they are fit and qualified 
for service in the church of Jesus. Again, Robert Paul Martin 
commenting on 1 John 4, 1. We can turn there. 1 John 4, 
1. which says, Beloved, do not believe 
every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because 
many false prophets have gone out into the world. Now, when 
he says that, I don't think that he means there's a panel of elders 
and these spirits come before them. These disembodied spirits 
sort of waft in, and then the elders test. It's the spirit 
behind the teaching of certain men. It's the spirit of those 
who have the wherewithal to claim that they should be teachers 
in the context of the church of the Lord Jesus. And then look 
at 2 John 10. 2 John 10. If anyone comes to you and does 
not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, 
nor greet him. Dr. Martin says we cannot obey 
these admonitions simply by receiving the confession that a man believes 
the Bible. You all understand that's problematic, 
because as I mentioned, the Mormons say they believe the Bible, Jehovah's 
Witnesses say they believe the Bible, there's a whole host of 
crackpots on YouTube that say they believe the Bible, but do 
they believe the Bible? When you believe the Bible, you 
learn something about who God is, that He's triune. When you 
believe the Bible, you learn something about how God saves. 
It's justification by faith alone. So when persons contradict what 
the Bible teaches, even though they say, I believe what the 
Bible teaches, we know they're not true, don't we? The Lord 
Jesus commends the church in Ephesus. We always get hung up 
on the reproof that they lost or left their first love, but 
we fail to reckon with the commendation. You've tested those who said 
they were apostles and were not. Jesus was all about that and 
commends them heartily. And the reason why I think they 
lost, not lost, but they left their first love is because they 
were engaged in the controversy of battling with false apostles, 
and thus their devotional hearts had grown cold. So Christ says, 
commendatorily, good that you test them, but condemnation, 
but don't leave your first love. You need to make sure you still 
have this affection and this white hot love for Jesus. But 
the church in Ephesus is to be commended. They took seriously 
1 Timothy 3, the qualifications for elders. Remember, Timothy 
was in Ephesus. Timothy was there in that region, 
and so we see that the church in Ephesus took seriously those 
qualifications when it came to false claimants to the apostolic 
ministry. So back to Martin, he says, we 
cannot obey these admonitions simply by receiving the confession 
that a man believes the Bible. We must know what he believes 
the Bible teaches on the great issues. A confession of faith 
makes it relatively simple for the church to inquire about a 
man's doctrinal soundness over the broad field of biblical truth. 
Without a confession of faith, the church's evaluation of its 
ministers is haphazard and shallow at best. and the church will 
be in great danger of laying hands on novices and heretics, 
all because it does not measure candidates for the ministry by 
a broad and deep standard." So instead of saying, oh no, we're 
not enslaved to confessions of faith, let's see the utility 
and the usefulness of confessions of faith. In this short compass, 
we can go from Dan to Beersheba, theologically, with any ministerial 
candidate, and be able to vet him, at least doctrinally, in 
terms of where he stands with reference to the church. And 
a beautiful thing about Our Confession of Faith is that it's not a standalone 
document. As I said, it's indebted to the 
Westminster, it's indebted to the Savoy, but all three of which 
are indebted to the earlier creeds and confessions. Chapter 8, paragraph 
2 in Our Confession of Faith smells just like the Council 
at Chalcedon. 451, when the hypostatic union, 
the two natures and the one person of Christ are hammered out in 
that definitive conciliar statement, the confessions of the 17th century 
don't reinvent the wheel, they don't try to go into new territory, 
they take that and they incorporate it in their chapter of Christ 
the mediator. So when it comes to the confessions, 
and again, they are consensus documents. There are differences 
and there are disagreements. Even at the Westminster Assembly, 
there were differences and disagreements between parties or persons behind 
the scenes. But what we have in the actual 
articulation of the confession is a consensus. This encapsulates 
more people and the thinking of more men than just a small 
handful. So that is a very helpful thing 
to remember when it comes to these documents. A fourth way 
we see the utility or the usefulness of the confession is to discipline 
for departures from the doctrine of the church. I'm not suggesting 
we discipline people because they don't toe the line on chapter 
26 and the confession there saying that the Pope is the Antichrist, 
that man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2. Well, if you refuse that, 
then out you go. No, I'm not suggesting that. 
We discipline persons for doctrinal deviations. Typically, we think 
of discipline only in the sense of practical deviations. a man 
is devoted or a man is committing, you know, sin of pornography. 
He doesn't repent, he doesn't repent, he doesn't repent, and 
so the church excommunicates him. There should be excommunication 
for heresy. Heresy is damnable, heresy is 
bad, and heresy affects the church as a whole in ways to a degree 
that this man's private sin doesn't always do. I'm not suggesting 
it's okay to do that, but I'm suggesting that churches need 
to be serious when it comes to doctrinal confession. The biblical 
data on the discipline for departures from the doctrine of the church 
is clear. We have the statement in Matthew 18 that the rest of 
the New Testament elaborates on or amplifies. You see it in 
Romans 16, you see it in 1 Timothy 6, Titus 3. I mean, we're probably 
right there. You can look at Titus chapter 
3. Titus chapter 3. Notice in verse 9, but avoid 
foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about 
the law, for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive 
man. Literally, reject a heretic after 
the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is 
warped and sinning, being self-condemned. So with reference to doctrinal 
departures from the church, there should be discipline, and the 
confession helps not only the church, but it helps the people 
as well. See, I can't just come to somebody 
and say, you're out because of this doctrinal defection. We 
have a confession that we're beholden to. We have an agreed-upon 
statement of faith that if you're in line with that, you shouldn't 
get excommunicated. You shouldn't be the subject 
of a pastor or group of elders' animosity because you think differently. Brethren, the church ain't Big 
Brother. That's not what's happening here. This is a confession of 
those things most surely believed among us, but when persons depart 
from that, and again, with reference to doctrine, a difference of 
eschatology is not an excommunicatable offense. It's just not. A difference 
with reference to justification by faith alone? A difference 
with reference to the Trinity? A difference with reference to 
who Jesus is? Those are huge. And this confession 
helps us to find those things out. And so it's a good thing. Muller says the confessions, 
or they confessions, stand below but also with scripture. They 
also stand above the potentially idiosyncratic individual and 
prevent him from becoming his own norm of doctrine. The non-credal, 
anti-confessional tendency understands the sola scriptura of the Reformation 
in a manner that the reformers themselves never did and surely 
would have repudiated. Sola Scriptura never meant solo, 
Bible only. The Confessions and the Reformers 
and the Puritans after them were men that worked in harmony with 
the various theologians of the church. It wasn't the case that 
Calvin would say, oh, don't read anything but your Bible, don't 
read anything but your Confession, and don't read anything but me. 
Calvin wouldn't have said that. That's just not accurate. He says, or he goes on to say, 
the Reformers would most probably associate much conservative American 
religion, and I would extend it to Canada as well, with the 
Biblicism of Servetus and the Sassinians. Now the word Biblicism 
sounds good. It sounds like we're committed 
to the Bible. Biblicism, theologically understood, 
is the fellow who takes his Bible and waves it and says, all I 
need is this and the Holy Spirit. Brethren, biblicalism is to exclude, 
or an embrace of biblicalism is to exclude the Bible. Because 
in Ephesians 4, he led captivity, captive, and he gave gifts to 
men. I want to know what Calvin said about a particular passage. 
I want to know what Gil said about a particular passage. I 
don't necessarily slavishly agree with them in every jot and tittle. 
but the church or people do theology not as individuals unto themselves. No man is an island unto himself. Guess what? We all need help. 
We all need the Calvins. We all need the Luthers. We all 
need those persons that wrote and taught and helped the church 
to maintain doctrinal stability. And then with reference to this 
application, Samuel J. Miller, quoted by Robert Martin 
in that very helpful essay, made this observation. He was a Presbyterian, 
I think, in the 1800s. Whenever a group of men began 
to slide with respect to orthodoxy, they generally attempted to break, 
if not to conceal, their fall by declaiming against creeds 
and confessions. It's usually the first step. 
Well, the confession was written by men. The confession this, 
the confession that. Again, it was written by men, but does 
it clearly articulate biblical truth? I think we'd all say, 
hopefully in this room, we'd all say, yeah, it does. Do you 
see what Samuel Miller is saying? They tried to conceal it first 
of all by saying, well, it's that confession, or it's this 
thing, or it's that sort of approach. And then he makes this observation. Men are seldom opposed to creeds 
until the creeds have become opposed to them. That's been 
my observation, at least experientially or practically. And then William 
G.T. Shedd. I don't know what the 
G.T. stands for. He had two middle names. That's 
always perplexed me. Not perplexed. Intrigued, I guess, 
is the better word. Listen to what he says, and it's 
going to sound a bit abrasive, but I think you'll get the gist. 
Heresy is not so great a sin as dishonesty." Again, I know 
that's a bit offensive, but just let me finish the quote. He's 
talking about men who have confessed Westminster is context, but don't 
teach it. Men who have confessed Westminster, 
but who don't hold it. So he says, heresy is not so 
great a sin as dishonesty. There may be honest heresy, but 
not honest dishonesty. A heretic who acknowledges that 
he is such is a better man than he who pretends to be orthodox 
while subscribing to a creed which he dislikes, and which 
he acts under pretense of improving it and adapting it to the times. The honest heretic leaves the 
church with which he no longer agrees, but the insincere subscriber 
remains within it in order to carry out his plan of demoralization." 
So you get the point. He's not saying it's okay to 
be a heretic. But a heretic who acknowledges 
it, and a heretic who says, hey, I'm a Jehovah's Witness, I deny 
the deity of Jesus, is more honest than the person within the context 
of a good biblical confession who denies that Jesus is God 
and tries to manage or maneuver in that context. No, better to 
identify where you're at and say, look, I'm not able to subscribe 
to this because I do not, with a clear conscience, hold to it. 
And then the last thing, in terms of the Ds, to distinguish from 
matters of Christian liberty. One of the benefits of this confession 
is the 32 chapters in what it teaches, as well in the 33 plus 
whatever chapters it doesn't teach. The 2nd London Confession, 
chapter 22, paragraph 2 says, "...God alone is Lord of the 
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments 
of men which are in anything contrary to His word, or not 
contained in it." There are a whole host of different ways and preferences 
that the people of God have in doing certain things. School, 
for instance, would be one of those things. How do we bring 
up our children in terms of school? There's differences, and there's 
some who think that their particular preference is the only way. Brethren, 
guess what's not chapter 33 in the Confession? We take all of 
our doctrine of Christian liberty. We have our preferences, and 
that's great. But we can't make that a consensus 
for everybody else when the Bible doesn't. So it's not only helpful 
in what it teaches, but it's helpful in what it doesn't teach. 
Persons can come into our church affirming either a mill or post 
mill or pre mill. That's OK, because the chapter 
on eschatology is broad enough I don't want to say vague or 
ambiguous enough, broad enough to allow for each person from 
that particular theological bent. That's okay. We don't have to 
force people all to be amill or postmill or premill. There 
are matters beyond that of liberty. I mentioned schooling. I remember 
years ago, and it was Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists have 
certainly seen their odd duck eras, but there was fights over 
or arguments over diapers. Like, you know, the purists among 
us could only use cloth diapers. You were somehow less than orthodox 
or less than a stellar parent if you used disposable diapers. It's bizarre, and you see these 
sorts of things. Alcohol. The Bible condemns drunkenness. The Bible doesn't forbid drinking 
in moderation. Notice the confession doesn't 
have that. There are things called liberty that persons disagree 
on, and that's okay. They don't come in and say, you 
have to toe the line on every jot and tittle. I don't want 
to be in a system like that. G.K. Chesterton, who was a papist, 
And while I disagree with his potpourri, made the excellent 
observation, if men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, 
they'll be governed by 10,000 commandments. Because if we allow 
men, they will exercise authority over us. The Bible prohibits 
that. The confession of faith echoes 
that. And brethren, honestly, we think 
of justification, we think of Lord's Supper, we think about 
those things as being the issues at the time of the Reformation. 
They were certainly big issues, but you know what else was? Christian 
liberty. Because you had the Church of 
Rome and you had the civil polity trying to tell the people of 
God what to do in matters that were not expressed by God the 
Lord. That's why it says, God alone 
is Lord of the conscience and has left it free from the doctrines 
and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his 
word or not contained in it. We are not to be subjugated to 
a civil authority or to an ecclesiastical authority that has a God complex 
and wants to tell us how to function where the Lord Most High has 
it. My argument in terms of one of the aspects of utility for 
the Confession is not only in what it teaches, but in what 
it doesn't teach, and allows us freedom of thought, freedom 
of Christian liberty, freedom of expression with reference 
to our positions. Now, for our preferences, hold 
them, fight for them, but not against the people of God, not 
against somebody who disagrees, not against somebody who's different 
in a non-essential matter. Churches typically split over 
non-essential matters versus the deity of Jesus. I don't typically 
hear of churches being shut down because the minister stood up 
one day and denied the deity of Jesus. No, it's usually, should 
we use the Trinity Psalter hymnal or the old Trinity? People get 
a bee in their bonnet about the weirdest things and just get 
strange and bizarre. And then the last thing to say 
about our confession comes from that patron saint of Reformed 
Baptists, C.H. Spurgeon. He says, this ancient 
document is a most excellent epitome of the things most surely 
believed among us. By the preserving hand of the 
triune Jehovah, we have been kept faithful to the great points 
of our glorious gospel, and we feel more resolved perpetually 
to abide by them. This little volume is not issued 
as an authoritative rule or code of faith whereby you are to be 
fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation 
in faith, and a means of edification and righteousness. Here the younger 
members of our church will have a body of divinity and small 
compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs will be ready 
to give a reason for the hope that is in them. Be not ashamed 
of your faith. Remember, it is the ancient gospel 
of martyrs, confessors, reformers, and saints. Above all, it is 
the truth of God against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. 
Let your lives adorn your faith. Let your example recommend your 
creed. Above all, live in Christ Jesus and walk in Him, giving 
credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved 
of Him and owned by the Holy Spirit. Cleave fast to the word 
of God, which is here mapped out to you." That's the way I've 
always approached the confession. It's not a straight jacket, any 
more than I think train tracks are a straight jacket for a locomotive. If a locomotive's not on the 
tracks, that's horrifying. If there's a group of sinners 
together without some tracks, that's going to be horrifying. 
In trying to do church, we need parameters, we need guardrails, 
we need tracks, and these confessions have provided that in a very 
helpful compass or summary statement. Well, let us pray. Father, thank 
you for this time to consider the doctrine of the church. Thank 
you for the confessions of faith, and we know and we confess they're 
not given by inspiration of God. But we thank you that they are 
good compendiums of those things most surely believed among us. 
I ask, Father, that you would bless our local church, all of 
the brothers and the sisters, with the desire to grow in the 
grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 
And God, help us by the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit 
to do this. And as Spurgeon reminds us to let our lives adorn our 
doctrine and to live in a manner that is consistent with that 
gospel. We ask now that you would bless this morning service. We 
pray for Wilma. We thank you for her and this 
step of faith in her older age. And we pray this would be a memorable 
and a wonderful day for her. And we ask through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen.